Summer of SWTOR

[LordArtemis]

It would make me sad as well if it were true.

 

The problem is that it's speculation as far as I can tell. Unless I missed something I didn't see any actual proof to back up the idea that no profit is reinvested into games that EA controls.

 

I'd be interested in knowing where this information came from. It seems pretty far fetched to me.

[Jandi]

If that's true, it makes me sad As I said, they have a right to do that if they want, but I don't think I could run a business that way in good conscience.

 

As subs start to drop, they start firing staff to keep the game making profit. While this model of operating works in business in general, it's completely the wrong way to go in the MMO market. If you're a small company and don't have the money then there is nothing you can do. However, EA has money, they have so much money that they could fund 10 swtors properly but they don't because short-sighted and ignorant people are at the helm.

 

Look at what Square did with FF. They completely messed up but instead of just giving up and moving to the next cash cow, they are relaunching the game and their fanbase is ecstatic and you can bet your behind they took a massive hit in the bank account.

 

The moment an EA operated game goes into red they cut their losses and run. That's not how you make a successful MMO. Look at EVE. They've been steadily growing into a massive hit by a VERY small dev team. Do you know why? Because they BELIEVE in the product they are making. They are passionate about making a GAME instead of making money. EA will never make a truly successful long-term MMO with their short-sighted mentality.

[Jandi]

 

I'd be interested in knowing where this information came from. It seems pretty far fetched to me.

 

No, you wouldn't be because you would wave it all off with magical thinking until the very moment an EA CEO stated as such.

[Ruzdu]

My dear Bioware,

 

This is simply not enough and not at the right time :

 

2.2 new flashpoint, one op Nim mode

2.3 new flashpoints, new pvp stuff, Nim of the other op

2.4 new op with maybe more pvp stuff and new fp

 

we need more flashpoints - new ones that is. noone wants to run those old ones again and again...

[canuckly]

What community requested this to be scaled up to 55? Better yet, what community even requested this come back at all? We want the Rakgoul event back, not the Gree for a fifth time.

 

there were numerous people on the game and on the forums wanting the Gree event you get what you ask for i barely saw any people asking for the Rakgoul event compared to the Gree Event

 

also numerous people were wanting double xp to come back they got that too and people still say they don't listen to the customer

[schmel]

http://investor.ea.com/ some interesting reads. especially this one: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/2496758856x0x661559/d34b9685-e689-44d1-925e-86a19acbd995/Q4_FY13_Script_FINAL.pdf. Only one mention of SWTOR and no mention of it in the section where they discuss their future plans. I was honestly nauseated to see that they've developed a CM-style model for their FIFA games. I haven't played those in a few years, but they were always really good games. I was shocked to see that you apparently now get players from random gambling packs.

 

I think it would be pretty neat if a bunch of players bought a share or two of stock (2200 cartel coins, aka $22 ) and went and trolled the annual investor meeting, as every shareholder is allowed to do.

 

I'm only half-joking though; if you're frustrated about the state of EA (and if you're not, your name is Andryah or Kilora), one way to do something about it is to become a shareholder and vote against the current board of directors and encourage others to do the same. But half-joking means that I understand the silliness and naivete of that idea too.

 

EDIT: Guess what they're telling their investors! "Our

Star Wars: The Old Republic game is a combination of free to play and subscription business models. Both models are performing well. The game has attracted new free to play members and total active users are up. We continue to deliver new game updates for the community every six weeks." Bahahaha.

Edited May 25, 2013 by schmel

[LordArtemis]

No, you wouldn't be because you would wave it all off with magical thinking until the very moment an EA CEO stated as such.

 

Please don't tell me what I would or would not do. I am more than capable of speaking for myself. And if anyone would be an expert on what I would do or not do...well, my guess is that that person would actually be ME.

[Jandi]

http://investor.ea.com/ some interesting reads. especially this one: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/2496758856x0x661559/d34b9685-e689-44d1-925e-86a19acbd995/Q4_FY13_Script_FINAL.pdf. Only one mention of SWTOR and no mention of it in the section where they discuss their future plans. I was honestly nauseated to see that they've developed a CM-style model for their FIFA games. I haven't played those in a few years, but they were always really good games. I was shocked to see that you apparently now get players from random gambling packs.

 

I think it would be pretty neat if a bunch of players bought a share or two of stock (2200 cartel coins, aka $22 ) and went and trolled the annual investor meeting, as every shareholder is allowed to do.

 

I'm only half-joking though; if you're frustrated about the state of EA (and if you're not, your name is Andryah or Kilora), one way to do something about it is to become a shareholder and vote against the current board of directors and encourage others to do the same. But half-joking means that I understand the silliness and naivete of that idea too.

 

Yet they were quick to report how big a success the F2P model is. Where is the announcement about expanding the dev team to bring us the content they were hyping and selling the game to us with?

 

That's the proof. What they don't say is much more important than what they do say and until you understand that crucial fact, you will always be duped into things.

[LordArtemis]

That's the proof. What they don't say is much more important than what they do say and until you understand that crucial fact, you will always be duped into things.

 

Duped into things? Isnt that a bit predatory?

[schmel]

Duped into things? Isnt that a bit predatory?

It probably is strongly worded on his part. But I do wonder why there was no mention of SWTOR in their plans for the future. Reading the report, it seemed like they view the game as just a continuing, solid source of revenue and they are focusing their attention and resources on developing games for next gen consoles and mobile platforms. I think that this approach, however, reflects a misunderstanding of MMOs (I might not like EA, but they obviously do have a lot of experience in the game industry. They're pretty new to MMOs though, so I don't think it's out of the question that they might be mistaken about some things on that front.) . A game like "bejeweled blitz" (never played it, but I think I get the idea) or "words with friends" (yes, I know that's not EA; it's an example) might well continue to produce constant revenue for a few years without changing anything. But an MMO is not a handheld game. Just because there is a social aspect doesn't mean that people will continue to just casually do the same thing over and over, the way they might for a mobile game, or even a FPS. I get the sense that they think MMOs are self-sustaining, like their sports games, handheld games, or FPS. But, of course, the reality is that MMOs, especially non-sandbox MMOs, are far from self-sustaining.

[Jandi]

Duped into things? Isnt that a bit predatory?

 

The capitalist business world is predatory by it's very nature and EA is a business above all else, as they've shown time and again. That's not a negative thing but it's something people should keep in mind as well.

 

While EA is in the business of making games, I doubt many, if any, of the people making financial decisions have ever played a game in their entire lives in any serious fashion yet these people ultimately decide the fates of projects.

 

Why don't you address the fact that SWTOR shines with it's absence in the call? If they were truly committed, financially, to improve and grow the game, you'd think they would talk about it?

[LordArtemis]

The capitalist business world is predatory by it's very nature and EA is a business above all else, as they've shown time and again. That's not a negative thing but it's something people should keep in mind as well.

 

While EA is in the business of making games, I doubt many, if any, of the people making financial decisions have ever played a game in their entire lives in any serious fashion yet these people ultimately decide the fates of projects.

 

Why don't you address the fact that SWTOR shines with it's absence in the call? If they were truly committed, financially, to improve and grow the game, you'd think they would talk about it?

 

Fair enough, but the person your talking to is not a business. It is a flesh and blood person.

 

Im not disputing your point. Just your poor choice of how you presented it IMO.

[LordArtemis]

It probably is strongly worded on his part. But I do wonder why there was no mention of SWTOR in their plans for the future. Reading the report, it seemed like they view the game as just a continuing, solid source of revenue and they are focusing their attention and resources on developing games for next gen consoles and mobile platforms. I think that this approach, however, reflects a misunderstanding of MMOs (I might not like EA, but they obviously do have a lot of experience in the game industry. They're pretty new to MMOs though, so I don't think it's out of the question that they might be mistaken about some things on that front.) . A game like "bejeweled blitz" (never played it, but I think I get the idea) or "words with friends" (yes, I know that's not EA; it's an example) might well continue to produce constant revenue for a few years without changing anything. But an MMO is not a handheld game. Just because there is a social aspect doesn't mean that people will continue to just casually do the same thing over and over, the way they might for a mobile game, or even a FPS. I get the sense that they think MMOs are self-sustaining, like their sports games, handheld games, or FPS. But, of course, the reality is that MMOs, especially non-sandbox MMOs, are far from self-sustaining.

 

I too get the sense that EA is flying blind a bit here. I'm not sure how much control they have over day to day here, but the company itself has had it's share of stumbles and bad PR.

 

Lets face it...it earned the worst company reward IMO.

[Jandi]

Im not disputing your point. Just your poor choice of how you presented it IMO.

 

My apologies then. I don't pay any attention to how I phrase the point I'm trying to get across, simply on getting the point across. It's a character flaw that gets me into crazy flame wars on the internet a lot.

 

I blame it on being Finnish!

[Jandi]

Lets face it...it earned the worst company reward IMO.

 

Please do not bring that ridiculous nonsense into this discussion. The fact that they were even a candidate says nothing of EA and everything on the average human being.

[Elear]

http://investor.ea.com/ some interesting reads. especially this one: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ERTS/2496758856x0x661559/d34b9685-e689-44d1-925e-86a19acbd995/Q4_FY13_Script_FINAL.pdf. Only one mention of SWTOR and no mention of it in the section where they discuss their future plans.

 

EDIT: Guess what they're telling their investors! "Our

Star Wars: The Old Republic game is a combination of free to play and subscription business models. Both models are performing well. The game has attracted new free to play members and total active users are up. We continue to deliver new game updates for the community every six weeks." Bahahaha.

Yep. Funny how document dated on May 7 2013 speaks of releasing content on 6 week schedule when last patch that did not break thoose 6 weeks was relesed in december last year(not couting 2.1 as 'proper' patch)

 

 

 

It would make me sad as well if it were true.

 

The problem is that it's speculation as far as I can tell. Unless I missed something I didn't see any actual proof to back up the idea that no profit is reinvested into games that EA controls.

 

I'd be interested in knowing where this information came from. It seems pretty far fetched to me.

 

Don't know about other games, but looking at SWTOR is easy to notice where it's going. With each new patch we're getting less and less.

In patches 1.1-1.3 we've got event, daily area, new warzone, 2 FP, new ops and group finder(not counting finishing KP as it was something that didn't make it in time to launch). Took around 6 months. Then "we're switching to F2P" standstill hit.

By 2.4 we're supposed to have event, daily area, flashpoints(2, strongly doubt it's more) and possibly warzone. It'll also be around 6 months since 2.0.

Same amount of time, same amount of "content" patches(ignoring 2.1), one ops and one usefull feature less(appearance designer is part of CM).

If money really is reinvested into this game, then it all goes into wrong part of it.

Because hey, making game really good is hard and it does not guarantee profit. Unlike CM.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Elear

[LordArtemis]

My apologies then. I don't pay any attention to how I phrase the point I'm trying to get across, simply on getting the point across. It's a character flaw that gets me into crazy flame wars on the internet a lot.

 

I blame it on being Finnish!

 

hehe. Passion. Well known Finnish trait. I've worked with a few Finnish folks in the past.

 

At any rate, no worries.

 

Please do not bring that ridiculous nonsense into this discussion. The fact that they were even a candidate says nothing of EA and everything on the average human being.

 

Ok. Im not sure why this would inflame you so. It is just a business after all. That means it's open to scrutiny in the market...and the market judged it that way.

 

But...if you feel it will not contribute to the discussion I will refrain from mentioning it further.

Edited May 25, 2013 by LordArtemis

[LordArtemis]

Don't know about other games, but looking at SWTOR is easy to notice where it's going. With each new patch we're getting less and less.

In patches 1.1-1.3 we've got event, daily area, new warzone, 2 FP, new ops and group finder(not counting finishing KP as it was something that didn't make it in time to launch). Took around 6 months. Then "we're switching to F2P" standstill hit.

By 2.4 we're supposed to have event, daily area, flashpoints(2, strongly doubt it's more) and possibly warzone. It'll also be around 6 months since 2.0.

Same amount of time, same amount of "content" patches(ignoring 2.1), one ops and one usefull feature less(appearance designer is part of CM).

If money really is reinvested into this game, then it all goes into wrong part of it.

Because hey, making game really good is hard and it does not guarantee profit. Unlike CM.

 

I dont think that viewpoint is unreasonable. I'm not sure I agree on all points, but seems logical.

Edited May 25, 2013 by LordArtemis

[Jandi]

Ok. Im not sure why this would inflame you so. It is just a business after all. That means it's open to scrutiny in the market...and the market judged it that way.

 

But...if you feel it will not contribute to the discussion I will refrain from mentioning it further.

 

The voting was admittedly trolled by reddit and 4chan users, hence it bares no value whatsoever. The fact that people insist on bringing it up despite this is incredibly asinine in my opinion.

 

It's like if there was an internet poll to vote that blue is actually red and a group like Anonymous started a campaign to vote that yes, blue is actually red it would somehow be a fact and we should all start calling blue, red.

 

I mean, seriously. Is EA knowingly supporting child labour in 3rd world countries by choosing to buy minerals from suppliers that use child labour? Are they actively polluting ground waters across the globe, resulting in water shortages and health problems? Are they actively contributing to the deforestation on the Amazon, which is essentially the lungs of the planet? Are they patenting plants that pollinate private fields, then sue the owners for patent infringement? No, they make video games lol.

 

I'm no fan of their practices and the way they are affecting the gaming industry but they aren't actively adding to the misery of the human race as a whole.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Jandi

[LordArtemis]

The voting was admittedly trolled by reddit and 4chan users, hence it bares no value whatsoever. The fact that people insist on bringing it up despite this is incredibly asinine in my opinion.

 

It's like if there was an internet poll to vote that blue is actually red and a group like Anonymous started a campaign to vote that yes, blue is actually red it would somehow be a fact and we should all start calling blue, red.

 

I mean, seriously. Is EA knowingly supporting child labour in 3rd world countries by choosing to buy minerals from suppliers that use child labour? Are they actively polluting ground waters across the globe, resulting in water shortages and health problems? Are they actively contributing to the deforestation on the Amazon, which is essentially the lungs of the planet? Are they patenting plants that pollinate private fields, then sue the owners for patent infringement? No, they make video games lol.

 

I'm no fan of their practices and the way they are affecting the gaming industry but they aren't actively adding to the misery of the human race as a whole.

 

Ok, sensible, certainly. But I think you misunderstood my post...which is understandable. So lets look at it again.

 

I too get the sense that EA is flying blind a bit here. I'm not sure how much control they have over day to day here, but the company itself has had it's share of stumbles and bad PR.

 

Lets face it...it earned the worst company reward IMO.

 

Stumbles and bad public relations that led to a worst company reward. They made certain high profile mistakes that caught the ire of their own playerbase, and then dismissed that playerbase and their concerns. Then they made a serious of public statements which spoke to arrogance, and the public reacted.

 

They earned the rating. I didn't say they were the worst company. I said they did their best to earn it with missteps and bad PR. You should never be dismissive of your market patrons. They will make you pay for it.

 

It was a point directly related to the idea that EA may be directly involved in the day to day.

 

So there you are.

[Jandi]

No, I understood your post perfectly. I guess my point is that the award should be named "Angered the most internet nerds in America". Then it would be an accurate representation of their behavior. Edited May 25, 2013 by Jandi

[Andryah]

Lets face it...it earned the worst company reward IMO.

 

Sorry LA.... but they did not earn it per se in any objective sense in the silly internet determination of worst company.

 

Worse then the big 5 banks (who spawned a world economic meltdown)??

 

Worse then oil companies causing billions and billions of dollars in real, measurable environmental damage to the planet... while continuing to pocket record profits (under an umbrella of continued tax subsidies)??

 

Seriously?? Is that what objectivity in the internet has become? A game company is the baddest, evilist, most dispicable company on the planet??

 

Sorry.. but the voters priorities in the worst company poll were clearly skewed by immature gaming of the poll.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Andryah

[Master-Nala]

Sorry LA.... but they did not earn it per se in any objective sense in the silly internet determination of worst company.

 

Worse then the big 5 banks (who spawned a world economic meltdown)??

 

Worse then oil companies causing billions and billions of dollars in real, measurable environmental damage to the planet... while continuing to pocket record profits (under an umbrella of continued tax subsidies)??

 

Seriously?? Is that what objectivity in the internet has become? A game company is the baddest, evilist, most dispicable company on the planet??

 

Sorry.. but the voters priorities in the worst company poll were clearly skewed by immature gaming of the poll.

 

Agreed, but to play devil's advocate, we need the banks and the oil companies. They may be evil, but they are a necessary evil. EA, Blizzard, all these video game companies could disappear tomorrow and I would just have to start watching television again....wait... I take it back, we do need EA!

[Jandi]

Agreed, but to play devil's advocate, we need the banks and the oil companies. They may be evil, but they are a necessary evil. EA, Blizzard, all these video game companies could disappear tomorrow and I would just have to start watching television again....wait... I take it back, we do need EA!

 

Considering how long humans have been around and how long banks and oil companies have been around, "necessary" isn't the word I would use.

[Master-Nala]

Considering how long humans have been around and how long banks and oil companies have been around, "necessary" isn't the word I would use.

 

Off-topic of course, but modern life absolutely depends on the financial and energy sector. Sure we could go back to life several thousand years ago...but...let's not.